Use of Geofencing to Minimize Accidental Death/Injury to Bystanders or Property

Use of Geofencing to Minimize Accidental Death/Injury to Bystanders or Property

Before delving into the specific examples of unmanned aerial vehicle mishaps and applications of lessons learned, there are a few points worth mentioning to gain a greater understanding of the technical innovations being made in the world of UAS. First, there are many lessons learned from manned flight mishaps and present a unique risk management opportunities, specifically with the specific application of those risk areas in terms of automated function monitoring and situational awareness. 

Engine out and glide considerations, specifically determination of safe landing areas away from populated ones based on known glide distance, is a predominant training area for junior pilots and ties into a sound decision making matrix and building situational awareness. The topic of individual UAV operator preparedness and training is an existing area of concern, but worth mentioning repeatedly. Commercial and private UAV operators may not be receiving the training required in order to maintain a solid grasp of the operating flight environment, and how to react accordingly with their surroundings (Murdock, 2015). Private UAV users may not be educated on flight restrictions for drones in their area or areas of high risk for collisions, in 2015 a private drone was flying above a news helicopter violating the 400-foot altitude restriction and the restrictions of flying unmanned aircraft in the heavily congested flight zone nearly causing a midair collision (Duecy, 2015). Collision with a drone and the rotor system of a helicopter can have disastrous results, and according to the FAA there are nearly 25 reported incidents every month involving drones that are flying too close to commercial aircraft (Duecy, 2015). 

Certain features inherent in the design of the UAV may increase safety such as geofencing, which is software that uses GPS or radio frequency identification (RFID) to draw a virtual boundary where the vehicle may not operate (Allianz, 2016). This integration of RFID geofencing into the NAS may be effective in minimizing the possibility of privately used drones entering congested and controlled airspace and high collision risk areas (Murdock, 2015). Geofencing legislation is currently underway in order to eliminate human error from the equation of UAV mishaps through built-in software, firmware and GPS tracking in the drone itself (Murdock, 2015). For emergency procedures, geofencing could prove to be a viable asset in terms of crash avoidance into populated areas for UAV flight malfunctions by placing them in large public areas such as parks, museums and sensitive areas (i.e. the white house lawn). 

In 2013, a drone crashed into the grandstand at Virginia Motorsports Park during the Great Bull Run, injuring several civilians (Weil, 2013). Additionally, in 2015 a drone crash landed on the center lawn of the white house in Washington, D.C. which led to a counterintelligence scare due to the small size of the vehicle flying in restricted airspace and not being seen on RADAR (Forrest, 2015). It is doubtful that civilian drone operators practice emergency procedures with their vehicles, and should not be able to fly in the aforementioned zones due to lack of general aviation training, emergency training and situational awareness. While this may be an oversimplification of the problem, this may lead towards a more safe and controlled environment for both manned and unmanned systems. 

Emergency procedure mode operations present an override condition and supersede the existing tasking that may be considered secondary or tertiary based on the changing conditions. In the application of manned flight as an example, a warning annunciator or light may change the priority of the flight from flying A-to-B, to landing immediately in a safe area free from hazards or people. Through establishing no fly zones for UAV’s ahead of time and ensuring they cannot enter via RFID or other features allows for reduced risk of midair collisions and potential flight malfunctions that would cause uncontrolled flight into the terrain (Allianz, 2016).  

References:

Allianz. (2016). Rise of the Drones: Managing the Unique Risks Associated with Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Retrieved from https://www.agcs.allianz.com/assets/PDFs/Reports/AGCS_Rise_of_the_drones_report.pdf

Duecy, L. (2015). Helicopter Crew Spots Drone Flying Feet Above KOMO Chopper. Retrieved from http://komonews.com/news/local/helicopter-crew-spots-drone-flying-feet-above-komo-chopper 

Forrest, C. (2015, March 20). 12 Drone Disasters That Show Why the FAA Hates Drones. Retrieved from http://www.techrepublic.com/article/12-drone-disasters-that-show-why-the-faa-hates-drones/

Murdock, S. (2015, August 21). 5 Points Which Senator Schumer Might Consider in Drafting his UAS Geofencing Legislation (No Drone Zones). Retrieved from http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/schumer-geofencing-provision/

Weil, M. (2013, August 26). Drone Crashes into Virginia Bull Run Crowd. Retrieved from The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/drone-crashes-into-virginia-bull-run-crowd/2013/08/26/424e0b9e-0e00-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?utm_term=.2bbedf7c05c9